The Final Piece Of The Puzzle!

I am sorry Rade, but I think you are reading something into my work which simply isn't there. I am NOT "trying to explain" anything at all! I am trying to discover the constraints on "an explanation" which are solely required by the "definition of an explanation". This cannot by any stretch be thought of as an attempt to explain anything. Explaining is left to others; all I am trying to do is see what constraints can be put on the issue without saying anything at all about what is being explained or what the explanation might be.

In the old days, you could say, "well, the explanation cannot contradict itself". That is a constraint. All I have done is examined the general question of finding constraints a little closer. What I am "trying to explain" is exactly what I have deduced from my thoughts about the issue.

In particular, I am not trying "to explain undefined information". I am merely trying to represent such a thing consistent with the common definition of "an explanation" so that I can make a logical analysis of the situation and discover issues which clearly imply a specific explanation "has to be wrong" in a decent and exact manner!.

See if you can rap your head around that.

Have fun -- Dick

boldenation mine. could someone explain represent this apparent direct contradiction? i just can't wrap my head around it in a decent or an exact manner.

boldenation mine. could someone explain represent this apparent direct contradiction? i just can't wrap my head around it in a decent or an exact manner.

Sorry if I have confused you. The two quotes are entirely consistent with one another. What is inconsistent is the interpretations people choose to put on those comments.

As to the comment you quote, that concerns the purpose and foundation of what I have presented. If I have made no errors then my fundamental equation expresses

the constraints on "an explanation" which are solely required by the "definition of an explanation".

which can be taken to indicate that modern physics is no more than a tautological construct based on the definition of an explanation.

However, none of my work has ever been examined by a competent examiner. It follows that the presentation may contain errors. That possibility can not be denied.

On the other hand, if there are indeed no errors in my work then there are indications that

the effect of that extra term in my solution is to make the gravitational field appear to be slightly stronger than estimated via Einstein's field theory.

Another interpretation of that comment is that, if my work is correct, modern physics is not internally consistent with Einstein's solution to General Relativity. This, in no way, contradicts modern physics. It is a well known fact that there are problems regarding quantum mechanics and General Relativity. This is in fact one of the foremost unresolved problems in modern physics.

Thus it is that my work appears to be 100 percent consistent with modern physics in every respect except that unusual term I spoke of: i.e., it implies that modern physics is very close to being an internally consistent construct.

That term is so small as to be close to being unmeasurable (thus leading essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's theory). My presentation is entirely consistent with quantum mechanics from the get go. Thus the fact that it gives essentially exactly the same result as his theory implies no experimental conflict at all.

Sorry if I have confused you. The two quotes are entirely consistent with one another. What is inconsistent is the interpretations people choose to put on those comments.

i get it. not seeing the glory is my error and not in the writing. my bad.

...However, none of my work has ever been examined by a competent examiner ...Thus it is that my work appears to be 100 percent consistent with modern physics in every respect except that unusual term I spoke of: i.e., it implies that modern physics is very close to being an internally consistent construct.

That term is so small as to be close to being unmeasurable (thus leading essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's theory). My presentation is entirely consistent with quantum mechanics from the get go. Thus the fact that it gives essentially exactly the same result as his theory implies no experimental conflict at all.

Have fun -- Dick

i can see how not finding a competant reviewer could pose a problem. insert something witty here on the lines of doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.

so anyway, your analysis & physics' analysis is mathematical, and mathematics is internally conistent? but if that is so then your analysis and physics' are by gödel's theorem incomplete. oui/no? but you say your analysis applies to any explanation which implies that it is complete. is your analysis incomplete or inconsistent? if you please, in what particular way(s)?

That term is so small as to be close to being unmeasurable (thus leading essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's theory).

Thank you good Doctor for the explanation.

It is too bad that the effect of your "extra term" on the strength of the gravitational field is unmeasurable, and that your non-theoretical solution leads essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's General Relativity theoretical equation.

Given this fact, I do wonder what would be the motivation for any "theoretical" physicist to take your "non-theoretical" approach seriously. Is there some other way that your approach leads to some predictable "and" measurable difference from that predicted by Einstein's theory ?

It is too bad that the effect of your "extra term" on the strength of the gravitational field is unmeasurable, and that your non-theoretical solution leads essentially to exactly the same results given by Einstein's General Relativity theoretical equation.

Given this fact, I do wonder what would be the motivation for any "theoretical" physicist to take your "non-theoretical" approach seriously. Is there some other way that your approach leads to some predictable "and" measurable difference from that predicted by Einstein's theory ?

Rade, your comments make it absolutely obvious that you have utterly no comprehension whatsoever of what I am presenting. You apparently cannot comprehend the difference between "a theory" and "a fact". Tell me what mental state would require a "theoretical" physicist to ignore facts? If I make any assertion which you believe is not a fact or a direct valid consequence of presented facts, please point it out!.

I have no idea as to why you continue to complain about my posts. And your inability to comprehend their relevance to understanding reality is totally beyond me.